Saturday, December 17, 2011

Ines Tariq (Al Mada) reports on the controversy over whether or not the country's Supreme Court has issued an arrest warrant for Iraq's Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi. Reportedly, Nouri al-Maliki wants al-Hashemi arrested. Nouri's political slate is State of Law. They came in second in the parliamentary elections. Iraqiya came in first. al-Hashemi is a member of Iraqiya. Iraqiya made clear Friday that things were changing and today they walked out of the Parliament.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is amassing dictatorial power as U.S. troops leave the country, risking a new civil war and the breakup of the nation, his deputy warned Tuesday.Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq told CNN that he was "shocked" to hear U.S. President Barack Obama greet al-Maliki at the White House on Monday as "the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant and democratic Iraq." He said Washington is leaving Iraq "with a dictator" who has ignored a power-sharing agreement, kept control of the country's security forces and rounded up hundreds of people in recent weeks.[. . .]"America left Iraq with almost no infrastructure. The political process is going in a very wrong direction, going toward a dictatorship," he said. "People are not going to accept that, and most likely they are going to ask for the division of the country. And this is going to be a disaster. Dividing the country isn't going to be smooth, because dividing the country is going to be a war before that and a war after that."

Like Tareq al-Hashemi, Saleh al-Mutlaq is a member of the Iraqiya political slate. Dar Addustour is reporting that the homes of al-Hashemi and al-Mutlaq as well as the home of Rafi Hiyad al-Issawi have been surrounded by "tanks and special forces." Dr. Rafi Hiyad al-Issawi was the previous Deputy prime minister (2007 through 2010). He was the head of Falluja General Hospital prior to that and he is currently the Minister of Finance. Like the other two, al-Issawi is a member of Iraqiya.

For those late to the party, it may be necessary to review the two Political Stalemates.

Iraqiya is the political slate that came in first in the March 2010 elections. The results of the March 7th elections, even after Nouri al-Maliki bitterly contested them and stamped his feet until a few post-election votes were tossed his way, were that Iraqiya still came in first and Nouri's political slate State of Law still came in second. Iraqis do not elect their prime minister, the Parliament does. Per the Constitution, Ayad Allawi, the leader of Iraqiya, should have had first crack at forming a government. First crack? You become prime minister-designate and then have thirty days to name a Cabinet (nominate people for positions and have Parliament vote in favor of them). If you can't accomplish that in 30 days, per the Constitution, a new prime minister-designate is supposed to be named.

Political Stalemate I ended in November of 2010 with the Erbil Agreement hammered out in Erbil between the major political blocs (and the US) whereby every one was supposed to make concessions. The Kurds would get to keep Jalal Talabani as president. They thought they would get three vice presidents. Iraqiya won the elections in March 2010 and the political bloc was headed by Ayad Allawi. Nouri wasn't stepping down and the White House was backing Nouri. For Nouri to remain prime minister, Allawi was promised he would head a new, independent council over security issues. He was also promised that the Iraqiya candidates demonized as Ba'athists and forced out of the 2010 elections by Nouri's friends would have their names cleared.

On November 11th, the new Parliament held their first real session. They voted Osama al-Nujaifi Speaker of Parliament (he was from Iraqiya and that was part of the Erbil Agreement), Jalal was named president and Nouri was named prime minister designate (but we were all informed in the following days that this was 'unofficial' -- once named prime minister-designate, you have 30 days, per the Constitution, to put together a Cabinet and get the Parliament to sign off on each member). But what of the security council? What of clearing the names of the falsely accused?

That would come, State of Law insisted, in time.

Allawi and a number of Iraqiya members walked out. They should have refused to participate from that day forward. Instead, they foolishly believed promises (from both State of Law and the White House). Nobember 25th, Jalal 'officially' named Nouri prime minister-designate.

Nouri had created Political Stalemate I by refusing to surrender the prime minister post. He'd done that for eight months. In that time, he should have had some ideas about a Cabinet. But Nouri's problem was he over-promised to get support. So when it was time to name a Cabinet, suddenly the Cabinet had more ministers and deputy ministers than it had previously (from 37 in 2006 to 42 in 2010). And he still couldn't keep his promises to everyone.

December 22nd, the Constitution was tossed by the wayside and Nouri was allowed to move from prime minister-designate to prime minister because he'd assembled a kind of Cabinet. He named 31 out of 42 ministers and people pretended that was good enough. He had failed to meet the Constitutional mandate of naming a Cabinet but everyone looked the other way.

He refused to name the security posts: National Security, Interior and Defense. His defenders (including the White House) swore those posts would be named in a matter of weeks. His detractors saw the refusal as part of a pattern of power grabs on Nouri's part and stated he wouldn't fill the posts. This is the start of Political Stalemate II.

Six days from now, it will be a year since Nouri was wrongly (per the Constitution, per the vote) named prime minister. And Iraq still has no Minister of Defense, Minister of Interior or Minister of National Security.

Today -- but not Tuesday on radio or during the week in print -- Liz Sly (Washington Post) notes that the 'government' is "unraveling faster than had been anticipated Saturday." She also notes, "In recent days, the homes of top Sunni politicians in the fortified Green Zone have been ringed by tanks and armored personnel carriers, and rumors are flying that arrest warrants will be issued for other Sunni leaders." For days? Plural. "In recent days." Hmm. Why didn't we hear about that when it mattered? Oh, didn't want to spoil the p.r. for Barack Obama. Well, hey, there's nothing more important in the world than our Lord and Savior Barack. Certainly screwing over the Iraqi people is understandable if it advances the Cult of St. Barack, right?

It's a good report. But it's going to surprise a lot of Sunday readers of the Washington Post who will wonder how the hell this happened with no previous coverage indicating what was going on?

It's a damn shame the US government, the White House, couldn't support the Iraqi people who knew Nouri had declared war on Iraqiya (their candidates were killed, banned from running and accused by Nouri of being terrorist repeatedly) who voted them ahead of Nouri's State of Law. It's a shame that the Iraqi people and the Constitution mattered so damn little to the White House which just had to have their thug.

Poor Barry. Unprepared to lead, ignorant of the world and looking like a complete fool as Saturday draws to a close and his words from the morning still prompting laughter. When he decided that experience didn't matter, he not only harmed the US, he harmed Iraq. And as bad as the above is -- and it's really bad -- it's not yet violence. As I pointed out earlier this week, Joe Biden never should have made his stupid remarks Tuesday night on TV. I love Joe, but it wasn't smart and it gives the GOP the video they especially need. They can intercut with Barack's airy statements and run it over footage of Iraq falling apart.

That's not an argument for staying. We have always favored immediate withdrawal. And we noted back when Barack won the election that he needed to get the troops out immediately. Had he done what many voters thought he was promising to do, the disaster that Iraq may become would be a Bush disaster.

If Iraq had broken out into all out war in 2010 -- Barack having pulled all US troops out in 2009 -- that would be Bush's problem. And Barack could say that. And no one could have argued with him. He had a mandate from the voters to immediately end the Iraq War.

But instead, he decided to own the war. And he decided to continue the occupation (by militarizing the State Dept). And he and his gang of idiots made one fatal mistake another another including backing Nouri over and over. Including repeatedly stabbing the Kurds in the back. Asking them time and again to ignore what was best for them and instead do what would help the White House. (That's not even counting all of the US money the CIA funneled into Goran -- a political party in the KRG that challenges the two existing parties.) As a friend in the administration said to me recently, there's really no marker left that the US can call in when it comes to the Kurds. The administration betrayed those who were friends to the US by supporting a thug named Nouri. In supporting a thug named Nouri, they betrayed the Iraqi people. In backing Nouri over the Iraqi Constitution, they sent a message and set a pattern that rule of law does not matter.

Today was day two of Bradley Manning's Article 32 hearing. Brian Bennett (Los Angeles Times) reports the prosecution talked about what they claimed to have which is various data discovered on "computer drives, compact discs and media cards" at Bradley's military sleeping quarters in Iraq and at his aunt's Maryland home, chat logs with paid snitch Adrian Lamo and that they paraded three people who are apparently all dependent upon the government for their paychecks. One prosecution witness, , used his time to name Jason Katz who is not related to Bradley's case but who the government employee wanted to insist had stolen video of a Granai, Afghanistan airstrike. Really? Should he be disclosing that? Maybe Mark Mander and the prosecution should be put on trial for disclosure of state secrets? Maybe the government needs to do an assessment on that (and then refuse to release it).

Monday April 5th, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." Manning has been convicted in the public square despite the fact that he's been convicted in no state and has made no public statements -- despite any claims otherwise, he has made no public statements. Manning has been at Quantico in Virginia, under military lock and key, for months. In March, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted.

The 24-year-old's Article 32 hearing (which will determine whether or not the government moves forward with a court-martial) began yesterday:

Today, Ellen Nakashima (Washington Post) reports, Coombs requested that Lt Col Paul Almanza step down as presiding officer in the hearing due to the fact that, in addition to the military, Almanza also works for the Justice Dept which has an ongoing WikiLeaks investigation. Almanza refused to recuse himself. Scott Shane (New York Times) adds, "Mr. Coombs appealed the recusal decision to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals and asked the court to halt the hearing until it could rule. A decision on a possible postponement could come as early as Saturday, when testimony is scheduled to resume at 10 a.m." Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers' Miami Herald) offers, "Making his first court appearance, Manning sat unemotionally behind the defense table wearing dark-rimmed glasses and a combat patch from the 10th Mountain Division on his Army uniform. He stared ahead, not glancing at the row of supporters sitting behind him and his defense team, which includes two military lawyers. After 19 months in military custody at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., he appeared thin but healthy."

Annie Linskey (Baltimore Sun) notes of today's hearing, "Defense attorneys spent little time challenging Manning's retrieval of the information, but instead used the government witnesses to draw a picture of a bright but deeply troubled soldier who was allowed to poke through a trove of top-secret information even after showing clear signs of emotional distress." Kirit Radi (ABC News) emphasizes Bradley's attorneys (David Coombs is Bradley's civilian attorney, the military attorney is Major Matthew Kemkes) raised the issue of Bradley being gay and also the issue of gender identity disorder. I'm biting my tongue throughout here and am not happy with reports of day two (both that I'm reading and that I'm getting on the phone). I'm going to set the bulk of that to the side but I'm sorry as much as I support Bradley, I don't support harming others.

You are not both gay (male-to-male sexual desire) and suffering from gender identity disorder. GID generally is the belief/feeling/fact that you were born into the wrong gender and you are trapped in a body that does not reflect your true gender. This may lead someone to seek sexual reassignment surgery. True GID is a long term belief/feeling/factual awareness that your physical gender is wrong. People can have GID-like thoughts or beliefs (or fantasies) that are short-term. They are not 'cured' so much as they realize, in therapy, that there were other issues. In addition, sexuality is fluid and people can have a thought or two that might seem to indicate GID but isn't actually GID. One of the few things that has been maintained here at this site is that we have never had anything up here that could knowingly hurt a trouble pre-teen or teen and I'm not going to have it now. So I want to be very clear that GID is in the normal range of human behavior. I want to be very clear that anyone can have thoughts similar to GID that does not mean that they have GID. Adolescents especially, trying to figure out the world and there own place in it and possibly already bullied that there's something 'wrong' with them or their desires, need to understand that there's nothing wrong with GID and that it isn't fleeting.

And we're staying on this topic, it's too important to me.

14-year-old Will is attracted to boys at school. At some points, he fantasizes either about dressing as a woman or a partner dressing as a woman. That's not GID. That needs to be stressed because 14-year-old Will probably hears that he's not a 'real' man or that he's a girl or something else from a bully at school. And role play is role play. Whether it's cross dressing or playing gladiators or whatever.

14-year-old Rita is attracted to girls at school. She shares some feelings with her best friend Kate who's also a lesbian. She explains to Kate that she really wants to penetrate her girlfriend during sex and Kate understands instantly because she enjoys that with her girlfriend as well. Kate shares information on various devices and toys (as well as fingers and tongue). But that doesn't satisfy Rita. Rita, in her mind, doesn't want to pretend to be a man, she feels she is a man. She believes she was born into the wrong body.

Boys can have 'softer' feelings or attitudes and girls can have 'rougher' feelings or attitudes while being straight or gay or bi. That's because most of the societal expectations result from society practicing gender stereotyping. A boy or man can be "girlish" in society's eyes without having GID or without even being gay. A girl or woman can be "mannish" in society's eyes without having GID or without even being a lesbian.

In a country plagued with sexual confusion and often in the midst of a national sexual panic, terms like GID can't just be tossed around loosely in an article. They need to be explained and explored. There are boys in school today who will realize they suffer from GID. They deserve support and love as much as anyone else. But a country whose adults have already harmed so many children -- through incest, through sexual assault, through bullying, through misleading and wrong information about sex and gender and having sex -- should step very lightly when discussing sexual issues -- not to avoid them but to ensure that everyone understands the terms you are using.

Just this week, a man I didn't know came up to talk after we'd done our Iraq talk to a group and, while sharing, he ended up bringing up a number of gender-related issues and the fact that, when he was in middle school, the principle would come into his math and English classes and attack him as 'strange' and 'weird' and 'fruity' and encourage others to as well. That wasn't children taunting a peer -- which is bad enough. That was an adult actively seeking to attack a child whose behavior obviously raised issues within the adult.

Bradley's 24 and in the military. He's still a young man but he is a man. He is either a gay man or he has Gender Identity Disorder. He needs a good therapist to work this through (if he hasn't already). But one is desire, as a male, to have sex with another male. The other is feeling/knowing that your body has betrayed you by being the wrong gender and that you need to rectify that. GID does not make you "crazy" or "bad." It is a condition and when it's a true condition (as opposed to masking something else) the solution to it is gender reassignment surgery.

Kirit Radia reports that the defense raised the issue of "Breanna Manning." This was not a draq queen issue, as portrayed in Radia's report [a gay man can enjoy dressing up as a woman but not want to be a woman, that would be a draq queen].

The issues being raised in the court are major issues and there's no indication that anyone -- presiding officer, prosecution, defense -- knows a damn thing about what's being addressed. Bradley needs a civilian therapist and needs one right away. The government owes that to him. It needs to be a civilian therapist because he needs to know that he can trust the therapist and that the therapist is present to help him, not to try to score points for the prosecution.

Some would argue, "A therapist? He can do that on his own time." The military's already held him for over a year now. The government should immediately make arrangements for Bradley to see a private therapist. This is insane. (Bradley would have the right to turn down such an offer and might choose to but the government has a responsibility to provide a therapist who is not answerable to the government and does not serve in the US government.)

These issues should have been addressed prior to the hearing. That the US military had him in custody for over a year when he apparently believes he suffers from GID and nothing was done to address this issue, no therapy was provided to him, is abuse on the part of the government. That people are using terms like "gay" and "GID" interchangeably in a hearing goes to the lack of awareness and outright ignorance. And the hearing underscores that Bradley didn't get the oversight he needed while serving because he's still not getting after a year in confinement.

There appear to be two arguments being crafted by the defense: one is Bradley Manning had behavioral health issues and emotional problems, which the military should have done something about or they should have never deployed Manning in the first place. The second is loosely related but has more to do with the lack of information security in the SCIF where Manning worked.

Coombs argued the SCIF at the base where Manning was stationed had no standard operating procedure (SOP). Captain Steven Lim, a top intelligence officer in Manning’s unit, asserted there was an SOP. Lim was then questioned on Sgt. First Class Paul Adkins’ training. Apparently in one hour, after 100 slides, Adkins was expected to be consider trained to keep the SCIF secure.

The procedure for inventorying and applying to get DVDs/CVDs for burning classified information on to a disc was illuminated through Coombs’ cross-examination of Lim. CDs and DVDs could carry classified information but they were to have labels and standard forms to easily identify was on the discs. They were required to do this so classified materials were not put into an unclassified machine. The inventory process included having to sign out materials. It was explained by Lim that CDs are used for taking products to be translated by linguists, especially if the information could not be emailed.

However, Coombs mentioned he had seen photos of the SCIF with “CDs laying all over.” Many of the CDs were not labeled. From time to time, this is how many CDs were handled. Soldiers are allowed to have music but the bringing in of music CDs was scarcely regulated. Soldiers are allowed to leave with writeable CDs if they had “official purposes” but that was “trusted and not enforced.

A gleeful and pompous Geraldo Rivera (Fox News) announces he's back in Iraq. I don't think he's been so giddy since he did the 20/20 segment that was supposed to be an interview with John Travolta (then promoting Staying Alive) that Geraldo turned into a workout session. If viewers can be thankful for little else, Geraldo has thus far kept his shirt on. So lightheaded and deranged, he forgets to note his previous visit to Iraq. March 31, 2003, CNN reported, "The U.S. military said Monday that Fox News Channel Correspondent Geraldo Rivera was being expelled from Iraq for divulging details of a future military operation, though later in the day a Central Command spokesman said he was not sure whether the newsman would be forced out." The following day, Chris Plante (CNN) would report, "Fox News Channel executives and the Pentagon reached a deal Monday in which correspondent Geraldo Rivera, who raised the military's ire when he reported operational details, will leave Iraq voluntarily rather than be expelled, Pentagon officials told CNN. [. . .] In the live broadcast, Rivera told his photographer to aim the camera at the sand in front of him. Rivera then outlined a map of Iraq, and showed the relative location of Baghdad and his location with the 101st Airborne. He then showed where the 101st would be going next." Peter Arnett did a journalistic courtesy and gave an interview to Iraqi television on March 31st. Fox News personalities immediately began demonizing him on air non-stop. By April 1st, NBC, MSNBC and National Geographic had all dumped Arnett. Though Arnett gave out no information that could have endangered anyone, Rivera did. He still works for Fox News despite violating a US military policy he agreed to when he entered the embed program. Geraldo was also a war cheerleader. They don't get punished. They don't have to admit they were wrong. They're allowed to lie and then lie about lying. That's how it works -- and not just at Fox News (or right wing outlets -- this is the mainstream, it's the left, it's everywhere, there's very little integrity in the press).

But on the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show (NPR) today, Diane and her guests -- Nadia Bilbassy (MBC TV), Robin Harding (Financial Times of London) and David Ignatius (Washington Post) offered some reality on Iraq.

Diane Rehm: David Ignatius, the war in Iraq is finally over. In your view, what has been accomplished?

David Ignatius: Well that's really the hardest question to answer for Americans and Iraqis with this week's visit to Washington by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. You had to say, in terms of specific commitments going forward, very little. We have an Iraqi democracy but it's headed by someone who's widely regarded as no paragon of democracy. He hasn't succeeded really in reaching out to other Iraqis. I'm struck, Diane, this week, a war that began famously with shock and awe, as we termed our spectacular bombardment of Iraq, ended with the muted, somber sense of how difficult this proved to be, how many mistakes the United States made. And, in the terms of measurable outcomes, how little the US got out of it, at the loss of nearly 4,500 US soldiers, 1000,000 -- at least -- Iraqis killed. So it's a painful story but we would have to say most of all for Iraqis.

Diane Rehm: 32,000 US troops wounded, more than $800 billion spent.

I'm not interested in silly spin. The president's campaign? He' is the one over it. He decides, he says yes or he says no. You can't claim that he is downplaying it but his campaign -- this entity over which he has no control -- isn't. Don't create this false wall that doesn't exist. Barack's campaign is Barack. I'll further point out that Barack did three days of press on this and that's just this week. So stop pretending that he tried to keep it low key. Stop pretending?

It was a brave stance to take for an ambitious politician at a time when American support for war with Iraq was building. He went on to become the first president to campaign on a promise to end an ongoing American war, and the peace movement helped put him into office.

He's referring to Barack's stupid 2002 speech which did not oppose going to war with Iraq, it opposed rushing to war. Barack didn't say no to war, he said the case wasn't yet made. He would spend the next years -- check the New York Times archives especially in 2004 and WHORE Tom knows this -- changing his stance. But in 2002, he wasn't running for national office, not even the Senate. And there's no way in hell his state legislature district would have supported him unless he took some stance -- no matter how tiny -- against the drums of war. Also, the peace movement helped put him into office? No, the Cult of St. Barack did. A lot of dirty whores like Tom Hayden who never made an honest buck and, in fact, would be depending on charity today were it not for the ridiculous and unmanly move of demanding millions to end a marriage. Greedy little whore, that's Tom-Tom.

In the years leading up to the 2008 election, there were at least 10 national antiwar demonstrations that drew more than 100,000 participants each. The movement helped Rep. Barbara Lee to rise from a lone war opponent in Congress to the leader of a bloc of as many as 200 representatives calling for an end to the wars in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Those combined forces -- the peace movement and lawmakers who opposed continuing the Iraq war -- created a political climate that enabled Obama to end the Iraq war over the objections of many in the Pentagon and most of his Republican presidential rivals.

What a trashy whore. Tom's not going to be welcomed into the DNC. He has no real money left (not to throw around on donations which is all the DNC would want from a low life like Tom to begin with). Whores tend to spend other people's money a bit too quickly. So he'll always be on the low rung he's lived since his divorce. But he seems to believe that if he just lies long enough, the DNC will embrace him. Seriously?

Reality, as everyone knows, Barack was planning to keep thousands of US troops in Iraq. Iraq wouldn't grant immunity from the Parliament. (Nouri was prepared to grant it himself.) So what happened then? They followed the deal the Bush administration negotiated in November 2008. Tom's praising George W. Bush. You kind of get the feeling that for a few more of the millions Jane earned while Tom relaxed on his ass and cheated, for just a few more, he'd blow George W. Bush in downtown LA at high noon. And swallow with a smile.

Another reality? Negotiatons never ended. This week Osama al-Nujaifi publicly declared that the Parliament was prepared to give "partial immunity." A step up from the stance in October of no immunity. That's what negotiations do, they see each side stake out a position and then see if they can move closer to one another's position as talks continue. Nouri has stated -- and Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee he felt it would happen -- that they can pick up the issue of "trainers" in the new year.

Want some reality from the press that few offered this week? David S. Cloud and David Zucchino (Los Angeles Times) observed, "The Obama administration had adopted its own version of the Bush administration claim that the conflict was worth the cost because it helped free Iraq from Hussein." We'll pick back up with The Diane Rehm Show when Nadia gets honest or closer to it. If she's only now aware of the 4.5 million internal and external Iraqi refugees which have been in the news since 2006, that doesn't say very much for her information base level (her intelligence level is brutally low but we'll address that on Sunday).

Nadia Bilbassy: In research I've been doing for the last week about the war, I came across something really striking. I mean, looking at -- looking at -- just to give you an example -- I found that, for example, 2 million people are internally displaced inside Iraq. Two and a half million refugees are outside the country in neighboring countries like Syria and like Jordan. Twenty-three precent of Iraq is under -- live under poverty line, that's $2 a day. This is a rich country that's sitting on the second largest oil resource in the world. They have -- 34,000 doctors left the country and forty-percent is the unemployment level. So, in a way, yes, they got a democracy in terms of the process of voting but this government, as David said, where the strong man like Prime Minister Maliki still holds the ministry of national security and defense, unable to bring somebody into the country -- into the government.

As Al-Maliki visited Washington on Monday and Tuesday, seven people died in shootings and explosions in Iraq itself, seen by many Iraqis as having been motivated by sectarian considerations.

On Tuesday, two bombs set off a blaze at an oil pipeline in Basra, Iraq's main oil refinery in the south of the country.

Even more troubling than the security weaknesses has been the erosion of the fragile political process established under the US occupation, which has been eroding since the formation of the current governing coalition in Iraq.

Many Iraqis believe that Al-Maliki is pursuing his own sectarian agenda that focuses on consolidating Shia power and monopolising control of the state and security forces under his Daawa Party.

Al-Maliki's failure to preserve a multi-ethnic political accommodation in Iraq has increasingly pushed the country's Sunni minority population to demand semi-autonomous status.

Let's discuss the provincesnd the semi-autonomous issue. Iraq is a country composed of 18 provinces. Three are semi-autonomous (Erbil, Dahuk and Sulaymaniyah) and they form the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). The other 15, at present, are under the control of the Baghdad-based government. Thursday, October 27th, Salahuddin Province's council voted to go semi-autonomous. Monday, Diyala Province's council passed a decision for the province to become semi-autonomous. Xinhua explains: Iraqi constitution says 'one or more governorates (provinces) shall have the right to organize into a region based on a request to be voted on in a referendum submitted in one of the following two methods: First: a request by one-third of the council members of each governorate intending to form a region. Second: a request by one-tenth of the voters in each of the governorates intending to form a region."

Al Mada notes that 30 residents of Diyala Province staged a protest which quickly turned into a sit-in. The protesters were registering their objection to the decision for Diyala Province to move to semi-autonomy. Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) notes that protests took place in Baquba yesterday for the third day in a row -- with "hundreds" participating. Alsumaria TV adds, "Sadr movement stated, on Thursday, that Diyala Region's declaration was advanced in a provocative and challenging way. Head of Diyala Province is spurring discord between the province's different components, the movement accused while asserting that the Iraqi Central Government is responsible for demands to establish federal regions." Bryar Mohammed (Zawya) adds, "Baghdad is trying to bully Diyala Province out of trying to become an autonomous region, AKnews has learnt. Suhad Hayli from the Iraqiya List party says he expects the Iraqi government will use force to quash the autonomy demands of the Province to the north east of Baghdad, bordering Iran. Diyala Provincial Council's demand for regional autonomy was announced two days ago, almost two months after another Sunni dominated province Salahaddin called for the same." On Salahuddin Province, the Kurdish Globe notes the events leading up to the October vote:

The provincial council of Salahadin last October unanimously supported making the province an autonomous region after the dismissal of faculty members from the University of Tikrit and mass arrests in Salahaddin province. Last October, the Baghdad Ministry of Higher Education dismissed 140 faculty members from the University of Tikrit in Salahaddin Province. The ministry pointed out that "it was simply following the parliamentary directive on "de-Baathification." Later, Iraqi security forces started an operation in the central and southern provinces, arresting former members of the Baath Party and accusing them of plotting a coup against Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government after the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops at the end of this year. The arrest came after Maliki received information from former Libyan interim leader Mahmoud Jibril, whose rebel forces obtained documents indicating that former Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi tried to support an attempt by Baath members to overthrow the Iraqi government.

That's one problem Nouri faces. There are many more. Many, many more.

Monday, November 28th, a car bomb was detonated near Parliament -- apparently targeting Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and members of Parliament. Nouri al-Maliki was no where near the building (he was out of the country) and not scheduled to appear in the building that week; however, his spokesperson and then Nouri himself began insisting that the bombing was an attack on him. Al Mada reports that Parliament's investigation committee noted yesterday that it was a suicide car bombing which claimed the life of the driver, that none of the four people who've been taken into custody on suspicion of involvement work for the Parliament and that early signs are a group of people (men and women) based in Baghdad and Anbar Province were behind the bombing.

In other explosive news, Al Mada reports that Iraqiya has announced it is breaking off talks with the ruling bloc. Iraqiya is the political slate that came in first in the March 2010 elections. The results of the March 7th elections, even after Nouri al-Maliki bitterly contested them and stamped his feet until a few post-election votes were tossed his way, were that Iraqiya still came in first and Nouri's political slate State of Law still came in second. Iraqis do not elect their prime minister, the Parliament does. Per the Constitution, Ayad Allawi, the leader of Iraqiya, should have had first crack at forming a government. First crack? You become prime minister-designate and then have thirty days to name a Cabinet (nominate people for positions and have Parliament vote in favor of them). If you can't accomplish that in 30 days, per the Constitution, a new prime minister-designate is supposed to be named.

Political Stalemate I ended in November of 2010 with the Erbil Agreement hammered out in Erbil between the major political blocs (and the US) whereby every one was supposed to make concessions. The Kurds would get to keep Jalal Talabani as president. They thought they would get three vice presidents. Iraqiya won the elections in March 2010 and the political bloc was headed by Ayad Allawi. Nouri wasn't stepping down and the White House was backing Nouri. For Nouri to remain prime minister, Allawi was promised he would head a new, independent council over security issues. He was also promised that the Iraqiya candidates demonized as Ba'athists and forced out of the 2010 elections by Nouri's friends would have their names cleared.

On November 11th, the new Parliament held their first real session. They voted Osama al-Nujaifi Speaker of Parliament (he was from Iraqiya and that was part of the Erbil Agreement), Jalal was named president and Nouri was named prime minister designate (but we were all informed in the following days that this was 'unofficial' -- once named prime minister-designate, you have 30 days, per the Constitution, to put together a Cabinet and get the Parliament to sign off on each member). But what of the security council? What of clearing the names of the falsely accused?

That would come, State of Law insisted, in time.

Allawi and a number of Iraqiya members walked out. They should have refused to participate from that day forward. Instead, they foolishly believed promises (from both State of Law and the White House). Nobember 25th, Jalal 'officially' named Nouri prime minister-designate.

Nouri had created Political Stalemate I by refusing to surrender the prime minister post. He'd done that for eight months. In that time, he should have had some ideas about a Cabinet. But Nouri's problem was he over-promised to get support. So when it was time to name a Cabinet, suddenly the Cabinet had more ministers and deputy ministers than it had previously (from 37 in 2006 to 42 in 2010). And he still couldn't keep his promises to everyone.

December 22nd, the Constitution was tossed by the wayside and Nouri was allowed to move from prime minister-designate to prime minister because he'd assembled a kind of Cabinet. He named 31 out of 42 ministers and people pretended that was good enough. He had failed to meet the Constitutional mandate of naming a Cabinet but everyone looked the other way.

He refused to name the security posts: National Security, Interior and Defense. His defenders (including the White House) swore those posts would be named in a matter of weeks. His detractors saw the refusal as part of a pattern of power grabs on Nouri's part and stated he wouldn't fill the posts. This is the start of Political Stalemate II.

Six days from now, it will be a year since Nouri was wrongly (per the Constitution, per the vote) named prime minister. And Iraq still has no Minister of Defense, Minister of Interior or Minister of National Security.

When announcing that talks were over, Al Mada notes Iraqiya stated that they had given up a great deal for the good of Iraq but there was no compromise from another. That's a reference to Nouri's State of Law as well as the coalition he now heads. In giving up the right to prime minister, Iraqiya was promised (and the Erbil Agreement is in writing) that an independent security commission would be created and that Ayad Allawi would head it. That's among the many broken promises Nouri made to keep his claws on the post of prime minister.

Warren Oleny: Feisal Istrabadi is a dual Iraqi- U.S. citizen. He was Iraq's Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations. He drafted the country's interim constitution. He is now Director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East at Indiana University. Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much for being on our program.

Ambassador Feisal Amin Rasoul Istrabadi: My pleasure to be with you again.

Warren Oleny: Why did you sever yourself from the current government of Iraq? You're no longer the ambassador and you're here at Indiana University.

Ambassador Feisal Istrabadi: I am. Well Indiana University happens to be my alma mata anyway. But, at the time, in 2007, I left at the height of the sectarian violence in Iraq. And I simply felt [clears throat], excuse me, I simply felt that the government and many entities in the government were complicit in the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and other places throughout the country and I felt no longer able to speak on behalf of that government so I left.

Warren Oleny: Are you concerned that that sort of thing will continue now that American troops are gone?

Ambassador Feisal Istrabadi: I very much am concerned as your previous guests also were discussing. The current prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has made a number of moves which indicate that he intends to continue to act against particularly the Sunnis of Iraq. And this, of course, is likely to lead to further deterioration in the country and most likely lead to further violence. It's a very, very worrisome sign to me.

. . .

[Clip of Barack Obama speaking on Monday, specifically this, "Mr. Prime Minister, you've said that Iraqis seek democracy, 'a state of citizens and not sects.' So we're partnering to strengthen the institutions upon which Iraq's democracy depends -- free elections, a vibrant press, a strong civil society, professional police and law enforcement that uphold the rule of law, an independent judiciary that delivers justice fairly, and transparent institutions that serve all Iraqis." but click here for full remarks.]

Warren Oleny: Feisal Istrabadi, how close is Iraq to achieving the kinds of thing that we just heard the president describe?

Ambassador Feisal Istrabadi: If this is a check list of what Iraq needs to do to establish the rule of law and Constitutional democracy, Iraq is failing on each of those items. Let me start with, being a lawyer, what's nearest and dearest to my heart, the judiciary. The judiciary has become a rubber stamp for the government. Constitutional cases -- a number of Constitutional cases have been decided by the Iraqi judiciary, in each case, given Maliki precisely what he wants. He has maintained control over the Interior Ministry which controls the -- he is acting Interior Minister, in fact -- which controls the-uh-the-uh internal security structure. He is, Nouri al-Maliki is, acting Defense Minister which controls the army. And he is also acting Minister of State Security. So he has the entire state security infrastructure, he has direct control over the entire state security infrastructure which, if you'll recall, is the way that Saddam Hussein rose to power in the 1970s -- precisely by controlling the state security infrastructure. We are repeating the same lessons of Iraq's past unfortunately. Each of these criteria, ticked off by President Obama, is a cause for deep concern for anybody concerned about democracy and the rule of law in Iraq.

Warren Oleny: Is there anything the Obama administration should be doing differently from what it is?

Ambassador Feisal Istrabadi: Well, I mean, that's hard to say because obviously it's influence is somewhat waning. The critical mistake the Obama administration made occurred last year when it threw its entire diplomatic weight behind supporting Nouri al-Maliki notwithstanding these very worrisome signs which were already in place in 2009 and 2010. The administration lobbied hard both internally in Iraq and throughout the region to have Nouri al-Maliki get a second term -- which he has done. Right now, the betting there's some question among Iraq experts whether we'll ever have a set of elections in Iraq worthy of the name. I mean, you can almost get odds, a la Las Vegas, on that among Iraq experts. It's a very worrisome thing. What can they do in the future? Well I suppose it would be helpful, it would be useful, if we stopped hearing this sort of Happy Talk coming from the administration -- whether its Jim Jeffreys in Baghdad, the US Ambassador or whether it's the president himself or other cabinet officers. We're getting a lot of Happy Talk, we're getting a lot of Happy Talk from the Pentagon about how professional the Iraqi Army is when, in fact, the Iraqi Army Chief of Staff himself has said it's going to take another ten years before the Iraqi Army can secure the borders. So it would help, at least, if we would stop hearing this sort of Pollyanna-ish -- if that's a word -- exclamations from the administration about how swimmingly things are going in Iraq and had a little more truth told in public, that would be a very big help to begin with.

Al Sabaah reports that Allawi met with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani on Tuesday and that they discussed various topics including oil-rich, disputed Kirkuk.

Jalal is an increasingly unpopular figure in the KRG -- which is why Massoud Barzani's competing political party continues to have greater support and why the new emerging Goran party continues to grow. Jalal's popularity won't be helped by the news that Dar Addustour reports: There's been no reduction in his salary or in the salaries of the vice presidencies. Not only that, the promised (in February) bill was never voted on by the Parliament.

In January and early February, scattered protests began to alarm Nouri al-Maliki. The protesters wanted improved basic services (potable water, dependable electricity, etc.), jobs and for the government to stop "disappearing" people. The protesters were also noting the vast corruption in Iraq and how an election had been held but the president, vice presidents and prime minister remained the exact same people who held the posts before the election.

Facing this discontent as discontent raged throughout the region (most prominently in Egypt), Nouri attended to head off the protests (and Moqtada al-Sadr rushed in to help Nouri) by promising a number of things. He would solve the corruption in 100 days -- just give him 100 days, Moqtada insisted -- and, right now, Nouri would promise reductions in government salaries, including his own. His salary was never reduced nor was Jalal's.

Polling brings more bad news for Nouri. Al Sabaah reports on a poll of Iraqis in which 70% say that they do not have access to all items the ration cards are supposed to provide. That's bad enough but it gets worse. All of Nouri's February promises of improvement? The people aren't seeing it. 80% of Iraqis say that there's been no efforts to repair the sewage systems in the areas that they live in, 68% state that there's no improvement in the water. Meanwhile Al Mada reports on a poll by the Arab Center for Studies which found that most in the MidEast region feel Iraq will be the next country hit by the "Arab spring."

This is not good news for Nouri who rightly feared in February that the Iraqi people were more than just disappointed in him. On the issue of the "disappeared" -- arresting peole and disappearing them so that families have no idea if their loved ones are even alive, that's not been addressed and Nouri's latest crackdown on "Ba'athists" (he sses them everywhere) only reminded Iraqis of the lack of improvement.

Reuters notes two police officers were injured in a Falluja shooting, that the Baghdad "convoy" of Baghdad security spokesperson Qassim al-Moussawi was attacked and one bystander was left injured, and, dropping back to last night, a Kirkuk sticky bombing injured one student, a Kirkuk roadside bombing injured one Iraqi military officer and a Mosul home invasion left 1 police officer dead.

In the US, Bradley Manning's Article 32 hearing began today at Fort Meade, Maryland. Monday April 5th, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." Manning has been convicted in the public square despite the fact that he's been convicted in no state and has made no public statements -- despite any claims otherwise, he has made no public statements. Manning has been at Quantico in Virginia, under military lock and key, for months. In March, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. David E. Coombs is Bradley's attorney and he provided a walk through on Article 104.

Today, Ellen Nakashima (Washington Post) reports, Coombs requested that Lt Col Paul Almanza step down as presiding officer in the hearing due to the fact that, in addition to the military, Almanza also works for the Justice Dept which has an ongoing WikiLeaks investigation. Almanza refused to recuse himself. Scott Shane (New York Times) adds, "Mr. Coombs appealed the recusal decision to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals and asked the court to halt the hearing until it could rule. A decision on a possible postponement could come as early as Saturday, when testimony is scheduled to resume at 10 a.m." Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers' Miami Herald) offers, "Making his first court appearance, Manning sat unemotionally behind the defense table wearing dark-rimmed glasses and a combat patch from the 10th Mountain Division on his Army uniform. He stared ahead, not glancing at the row of supporters sitting behind him and his defense team, which includes two military lawyers. After 19 months in military custody at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., he appeared thin but healthy."

Monday, November 28th, a car bomb was detonated near Parliament -- apparently targeting Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and members of Parliament. Nouri al-Maliki was no where near the building (he was out of the country) and not scheduled to appear in the building that week; however, his spokesperson and then Nouri himself began insisting that the bombing was an attack on him. Al Mada reports that Parliament's investigation committee noted yesterday that it was a suicide car bombing which claimed the life of the driver, that none of the four people who've been taken into custody on suspicion of involvement work for the Parliament and that early signs are a group of people (men and women) based in Baghdad and Anbar Province were behind the bombing.

In other explosive news, Al Mada reports that Iraqiya has announced it is breaking off talks with the ruling bloc. Iraqiya is the political slate that came in first in the March 2010 elections. Per the Constitution, Iraqiya should have had first crack at forming the government but Nouri al-Maliki refused to surrender the post of prime minister and the US backed him allowing the Constitution and the will of the Iraqi people to be circumvented. This was the nearly eight months of Political Stalemate I following the elections. Political Stalemate I ended in November 2010 when the various blocs met in Erbil and came to an understanding outlined in the Erbil Agreement. Concessions were made by Kurds, Iraqiya and most other participants. State of Law, Nouri's political slate, which came in second made no real concessions. And once the Erbil Agreement allowed Nouri first crack at forming the government (prime minister-designate), he quickly tossed aside the Erbil Agreement thereby kicking off Political Stalemate II. The Kurds, the National Alliance and Iraqiya have been repeatedly calling in the last months for the Erbil Agreement to be honored.

When announcing that talks were over, Al Mada notes Iraqiya stated that they had given up a great deal for the good of Iraq but there was no compromise from another. That's a reference to Nouri's State of Law as well as the coalition he now heads. In giving up the right to prime minister, Iraqiya was promised (and the Erbil Agreement is in writing) that an independent security commission would be created and that Ayad Allawi would head it. That's among the many broken promises Nouri made to keep his claws on the post of prime minister.Al Sabaah reports that Allawi met with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani on Tuesday and that they discussed various topics including oil-rich, disputed Kirkuk.

Jalal is an increasingly unpopular figure in the KRG -- which is why Massoud Barzani's competing political party continues to have greater support and why the new emerging Goran party continues to grow. Jalal's popularity won't be helped by the news that Dar Addustour reports: There's been no reduction in his salary or in the salaries of the vice presidencies. Not only that, the promised (in February) bill was never voted on by the Parliament.

In January and early February, scattered protests began to alarm Nouri al-Maliki. The protesters wanted improved basic services (potable water, dependable electricity, etc.), jobs and for the government to stop "disappearing" people. The protesters were also noting the vast corruption in Iraq and how an election had been held but the president, vice presidents and prime minister remained the exact same people who held the posts before the election.

Facing this discontent as discontent raged throughout the region (most prominently in Egypt), Nouri attended to head off the protests (and Moqtada al-Sadr rushed in to help Nouri) by promising a number of things. He would solve the corruption in 100 days -- just give him 100 days, Moqtada insisted -- and, right now, Nouri would promise reductions in government salaries, including his own. His salary was never reduced nor was Jalal's.

Polling brings more bad news for Nouri. Al Sabaah reports on a poll of Iraqis in which 70% say that they do not have access to all items the ration cards are supposed to provide. That's bad enough but it gets worse. All of Nouri's February promises of improvement? The people aren't seeing it. 80% of Iraqis say that there's been no efforts to repair the sewage systems in the areas that they live in, 68% state that there's no improvement in the water. Meanwhile Al Mada reports on a poll by the Arab Center for Studies which found that most in the MidEast region feel Iraq will be the next country hit by the "Arab spring."

This is not good news for Nouri who rightly feared in February that the Iraqi people were more than just disappointed in him. On the issue of the "disappeared" -- arresting peole and disappearing them so that families have no idea if their loved ones are even alive, that's not been addressed and Nouri's latest crackdown on "Ba'athists" (he sses them everywhere) only reminded Iraqis of the lack of improvement.

A foundation of the Bush doctrine was that the president can do whatever he wants. Bush didn’t, however, openly order the killing of U.S. citizens. That Barack Obama just sent drone strikes to kill 3 three U.S. citizens (Anwar al-Awlaki, a Muslim cleric, his 16 year old son, and another associate in Yemen) and justifies it is a horror. This is monstrous immorality – no government should be allowed to kill with impunity, much less from a distance, in secret, off a battlefield. These actions are not making the world, nor people in this country, safer. Someone needs to say: Crimes are crimes, no matter who does them.Someone needs to say all this louder, and World Can’t Wait does! We go after the cutting edge issues, dig through the lies and cover-ups to speak the truth. We find substantive and visible ways to encourage people to act on what their consciences tell them is true, opening up space for people to take principled stands of resistance. And we support them when they do.We’ve learned how much people crave community, and how much a community of truth-seekers, artists, activists, war resisters and youth can open up possibilities. World Can’t Wait fosters this community and provides a place for all those who are disgusted and want to act, including those in non-urban areas. We connect people across the country through our volunteer national office, conference calls, webcasts, online social networking, and live events.Supporters of World Can’t Wait – including you who support this work financially – have been tremendously energetic, creative and determined in showing collective conscience in action. We can’t and won’t stop now, though we will do a lot more with sufficient funding.World Can’t Wait has stuck with its principles, and is leading others to take meaningful actions that challenge the wars, the torture state and the re-making of U.S. society in a fascist direction. Can you think back to before the USA PATRIOT Act, before surveillance cameras and “watch what you say” and “Homeland” security? Can you remember when only Republicans rounded up immigrants and separated families in detention, or supported legislation giving “personhood” rights to fetuses? We cherish allies who tell is like it is. As we said in the Call to Drive Out the Bush Regime, “This whole idea of putting our hopes and energies into ‘leaders’ who tell us to seek common ground with fascists and religious fanatics is proving every day to be a disaster, and actually serves to demobilize people.” We need our own voices speaking up for the people’s interests.We ask for your year-end donation now in support of concrete efforts to stop the crimes of our government.

Iraq is a country composed of 18 provinces. Three are semi-autonomous (Erbil, Dahuk and Sulaymaniyah) and they form the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). The other 15, at present, are under the control of the Baghdad-based government. Thursday, October 27th, Salahuddin Province's council voted to go semi-autonomous. Monday, Diyala Province's council passed a decision for the province to become semi-autonomous. Xinhua explains: Iraqi constitution says 'one or more governorates (provinces) shall have the right to organize into a region based on a request to be voted on in a referendum submitted in one of the following two methods: First: a request by one-third of the council members of each governorate intending to form a region. Second: a request by one-tenth of the voters in each of the governorates intending to form a region."

Al Mada notes that 30 residents of Diyala Province staged a protest which quickly turned into a sit-in. The protesters were registering their objection to the decision for Diyala Province to move to semi-autonomy. Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) notes that protests took place in Baquba yesterday for the third day in a row -- with "hundreds" participating. Alsumaria TV adds, "Sadr movement stated, on Thursday, that Diyala Region's declaration was advanced in a provocative and challenging way. Head of Diyala Province is spurring discord between the province's different components, the movement accused while asserting that the Iraqi Central Government is responsible for demands to establish federal regions." Bryar Mohammed (Zawya) adds, "Baghdad is trying to bully Diyala Province out of trying to become an autonomous region, AKnews has learnt. Suhad Hayli from the Iraqiya List party says he expects the Iraqi government will use force to quash the autonomy demands of the Province to the north east of Baghdad, bordering Iran. Diyala Provincial Council's demand for regional autonomy was announced two days ago, almost two months after another Sunni dominated province Salahaddin called for the same." On Salahuddin Province, the Kurdish Globe notes the events leading up to the October vote:

The provincial council of Salahadin last October unanimously supported making the province an autonomous region after the dismissal of faculty members from the University of Tikrit and mass arrests in Salahaddin province. Last October, the Baghdad Ministry of Higher Education dismissed 140 faculty members from the University of Tikrit in Salahaddin Province. The ministry pointed out that "it was simply following the parliamentary directive on "de-Baathification." Later, Iraqi security forces started an operation in the central and southern provinces, arresting former members of the Baath Party and accusing them of plotting a coup against Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government after the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops at the end of this year. The arrest came after Maliki received information from former Libyan interim leader Mahmoud Jibril, whose rebel forces obtained documents indicating that former Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi tried to support an attempt by Baath members to overthrow the Iraqi government.

At MSNBC, Kael Alford is contributing photo essays on the Iraq she saw immediately after the US-invasion compared to what she saw over the summer in Iraq. Her latest essay is on Iraqi women and she notes activist Yanar Mohammed was raising important issues in 2003 and continues to do so today:

One of her main talking points is this: Iraq is a more dangerous place for women than it was before the U.S. invasion and it is getting worse. Reports by international human rights groups support her observations. According to the 2011 Iraq summary report by Human Rights Watch: "The deterioration of security has promoted a rise in tribal customs and religiously-inflected political extremism, which have had a deleterious effect on women's rights, both inside and outside the home."Today, in a country where women have served in Parliament since the 1960s -- longer than in any other Middle Eastern country -- they are increasingly targeted by militant Islamic elements for participating in government, holding jobs or violating conservative Islamic traditions, such as appearing in public without head coverings. Even secular women now wear scarves in hopes of avoiding dangerous attention.

How ironic. According to Awatef [Rasheed], Iraqi women did not support the invasion of Iraq, nor can they support the troop withdrawal at this time, given the current political climate. Iraqi women have had to bear the brunt of this war, are the largest victims of this war, and yet they have not been included in any of the decisions that will govern their lives or determine their future. And now, those who speak out against destructive government policies are being hunted down and silenced. Where is the liberation in that?As Yanar Mohammed put it, "we used to have a government that was almost secular. It had one dictator. Now we have almost 60 dictators -- Islamists who think of women as forces of evil. This is what is called the democratization of Iraq."Awatef elaborated, "The American occupation destabilized the country and provided an invaluable opportunity for corrupt people to hold political positions. Organizations cannot develop and advance programs under a suppressive regime and a theological government. The current government is shaped by serious corruption, disrespect to human rights, lack of transparency, non-democratic practices and lack of freedoms. It relies very much on militiamen and security authorities emerging from the religious militia. Women are marginalized, being exposed to sexual and domestic violence and their human rights are not recognized."This past year we watched much of the Arab world take to the streets and demand change from repression under decades-long dictatorships. The U.S. government has gone to bat supporting activists calling for democracy in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria, and provided military assistance to armed rebels in Libya. As Secretary of State Clinton stated, "The people of the middle east, like people everywhere, are seeking a chance to contribute and to have a role in the decisions that will shape their lives. Leaders need to view civil society as their partner, not as a threat." But so far, the U.S. government has remained eerily silent about the non-violent protests on the streets of Baghdad.

From Iraqi to American women, an e-mail to the public account notes Patrick Goodenough (CNS News) report on various figures in the Iraq War and that he states 104 women died in the Iraq War. The e-mail's in reference to yesterday's snapshot: "As of September 23, 2011, 111 female US service members had died in the Iraq War according to Noonie Fortin -- and 13 US civilian women died in the Iraq War as well. Fortin provides a write up on each one of the dead (including the civilians like DynCorp contractor Deborah Klecker who died at age 51 in June 2005). The first US female service member to die in Iraq was PFC Lori Ann Piestewa (also the first Native American to die in the Iraq War) on March 23, 2003. And the last so far was August 7, 2010, SPC Faith R. Hinkley of Colorado. " While I'm glad Goodenough and CNS are noting the number of women killed, I'll go with Fortin's figures because, again, she notes every death, I believe she has a photo for every woman, and has a write up. CNN's Barbara Starr spoke with Iraq War veterans at the VFW in Virginia and we'll note this:

"I think that sense of isolation can be enhanced for female veterans because we are even more invisible, " says Kayla Williams, linguist with an intelligence unit of the Army during the initial invasion. "Because female veterans don't fit that stereotype of what a veteran looks like, who a veteran is, they can blend into the background even more."

The following community sites -- plus Antiwar.com and IPS -- updated last night and this morning:

Pfc. Bradley Manning’s Article 32 hearing, also being referred to as his pre-trial hearing, will begin on December 16 at Ft. Meade, Maryland. The hearing could potentially last until Friday, December 23.

An Article 32 hearing, according to the Defense Department, is “closely akin to the civilian grand jury investigation.” When the hearing closes, the “Article 32 officer” will make “a recommendation” on “the disposition of the charges.” Or, as David Dishneau of AP clearly and concisely puts it, “The proceeding is to determine whether the Army intelligence analyst will be court-martialed for allegedly leaking government secrets.”

This kind of hearing is supposed to be about whether there is enough evidence to bring Manning to trial. As mentioned above, an “investigative officer, not a judge,” will preside over the hearing. This officer is often “a military attorney, a judge advocate, but legal training isn’t required.”

As Dishneau further describes, “Lawyers can call witnesses and make motions, just as in civilian court. But the military tightly controls public access to written filings.” Additionally, “There is no court clerk from whom such documents can be readily obtained. Except for what’s said in court, most of the public information about proceedings comes from civilian defense lawyers, who aren’t bound by a chain of command.”

I had nothing to add to that topic this week in part because a friend in the administration never forwarded the "amendments." Barack changed some military policies this week -- did anyone cover that? This might potentially effect a court-martial of Bradley (the Article 32 will determine whether the case goes on to a court-martial or not). Hold on, I'm flipping to another screen to log into a personal e-mail account. Okay, "Executive Order --2011 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States" and it was December 13th. I asked a friend for a copy of the actual amendments because all the statement notes is that Barack has made amendments to Parts III and IV in the Manual for Courts-Martial. I was told I'd get a copy and haven't yet. (And a ton of other things have come up since for me and I'm sure for my friend as well.) The changes wouldn't effect Bradley's Article 32 because the changes don't go into effect until January 13th.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.